AV
5.0Reviewed Jul 12, 2020
The lessons were taught up to the mark and clearly understood. I wish if Summary or Key-Takeaways of the whole course was available, so that it would help in having quick glance on course.
If you're interested in the energy transition, take this course with a massive grain of salt (or don't take it at all, there's much better information out there). The presenter is a former Xcel marketing executive and outside of her time as a marketing professor at CU Denver, still does contract work for Xcel. Xcel even endorsed the class when it was published (I wonder why).
Most egregiously, the course fails to mention climate change until the 4th section (of 5) and omits it entirely on the fossil fuels lesson. Even then it's in passing: during the lesson on EVs, it tries to blame climate change on the transportation sector, despite that power makes up some 30% of all global greenhouse gas emissions, more than any other. THAT is the #1 takeaway and what the presenter does not mention once in all 25+ lessons. It describes natural gas as "low emissions," forgets to mention the CO2 associated with burning/producing/transporting natural gas and does not address methane at all (a greenhouse gas 84 times more potent than CO2 and the primary component of natural gas). It complains that coal has been "victimized" and really is a great source of power (again, no mention of the effects of coal on the climate, which is the key reason for removing it from our energy mix). She euphemizes climate change as "air pollution" throughout. She goes to lengths to disprove the myth that smart meters cause cancer, but has nothing to say on rampant misinformation campaigns and duplicitous lobbying (which Xcel has participated in) by fossil fuel advocates and climate deniers. Whole videos are dedicated to the issues with renewables (birdstrikes and noise pollution are two she calls out), but again does not discuss the consequences of fossil fuels on climate change once. It ignores comprehensive plans to increase renewable penetration to 60, 75, even 90% of our energy mix without the need for technology breakthroughs, instead using "keeping rates low" as a catch all for why utilities are still dragging their feet. It misses the point entirely: renewables are better for the longevity of our economic system, and therefore the economy, even if it forces utilities to, god forbid, innovate (ignoring that many clean power plans call for lower rates).
For all its faux attention to a balanced conversation, it's pretty blatantly pro industry, pro natural gas/fracking, anti Clean Power Plan, and skeptical of the economics of renewables (the vast majority of air time goes to utility execs; there is no representation of people with legitimate critiques of the energy system, all the quiz questions are subtly phrased to highlight the worst in renewables and the best in fossil, clearly the work of a marketer with experience creating biased surveys -- "select all the reasons renewables are difficult to integrate on the grid"; "select all the benefits of natural gas"; "select all the critques of the Clean Power Plan" -- as opposed to "which of these energy sources will irreparably change our climate the fastest."). It's also way out of date, especially with regards to the latest technologies, despite being filmed in 2015/6 (I assume). In that time, solar, wind, and battery storage costs have fallen past some critical inflection points.
I am incredibly skeptical of the presenters motives in making this course, and frankly surprised Coursera allows such biased, pro-industry content on their site (and specifically pro-Xcel; the final video includes an entire Xecl pitch of their "vision of the future" by, I can only assume, a colleague of the presenter. No wonder they endorsed it; maybe even paid for it, considering the presenter is an Xcel contractor). Coursera either needs to put a big label on this course that it's a utility marketer's perspective (or, if you’re a cynic, and entrenched fossil fuels exec who’s probably getting paid to say these things), or they need to reshoot at least the 1st, 4th and 5th module with updated info and a new presenter (ideally a scientist, not a marketing professor; perhaps the woman from NREL who gets interviewed a few times). If you care about climate, take this course purely to understand a subtle fossil fuel apologist's narrative — cleverly disguised as unbiased educational content — and to appreciate how much progress has been made in just a few years. If you're interested in the future of the power sector/the energy transition, find another, less biased source of information.